Exxon, Chevron Post Record Profits

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Exxon, Chevron Post Record Profits
By JOHN PORRETTO, AP Business Writer
2 HOURS AGO

HOUSTON - Suppose Exxon Mobil decided to return the favor and buy you a tank of gas. Then again, why stop there? The oil giant turned a profit last year fat enough to buy a fill-up for every car, truck and SUV in America _ four times.

Beating its own record to rack up the largest annual corporate profit in American history, Exxon Mobil Corp. said Friday it earned $40.6 billion for the year, reaping the benefits of crude-oil prices around $100 a barrel.

Exxon Mobil also topped its own record for profit in a single quarter, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of the year _ about $1 billion more than the same period in 2005, the previous quarterly record.

The annual profit was enough, at $3 a gallon, to buy nearly four 15-gallon fill-ups for the roughly 243 million registered passenger vehicles on American roads. Put another way, it's almost equal to what Microsoft has offered to buy Yahoo outright.

And the quarterly profit alone is about the same as the size of the entire economy of Iceland or Namibia. The previous record for annual profit was $39.5 billion, posted by Exxon Mobil in 2006.

Chevron Corp., No. 2 behind Exxon Mobil among U.S. oil companies, also had its best year ever in 2007, saying Friday that it banked a profit of $18.7 billion.

The results were eye-popping but not a total surprise: For most of the fourth quarter, oil prices hovered around $90 a barrel, 50 percent higher than a year earlier. Crude reached an all-time high of $100.09 on Jan. 3 but has fallen about 10 percent since.

Revenue at Exxon Mobil rose 30 percent in the fourth quarter to $116.6 billion from $90 billion a year ago. For the year, sales rose to $404.5 billion _ a figure just slightly lower than the U.S. Defense Department's fiscal 2007 budget.

Exxon Mobil, which produces 3 percent of the world's oil, pegged high commodity prices as the driver for its results but also touted its far-reaching businesses.

"We continued to supply crude oil and natural gas volumes to meet the world's energy needs through disciplined development and operation of our globally diverse resource base," said Chairman Rex Tillerson.

But at a time when many fear the U.S. economy is sliding into a recession _ or is in one already _ not everyone was applauding the results.

With the economy weakening and the prospect of $4-a-gallon gas looming for spring and summer, the hefty oil profits immediately renewed charges that Big Oil was profiting at the expense of most Americans.

Within hours of Exxon Mobil and Chevron reporting their results, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Finance Committee, urged Congress to repeal tax breaks for the oil industry.

"Congratulations to Exxon Mobil and Chevron _ for reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax incentives for oil companies," Schumer said.

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights called for greater regulation of energy trading markets. The watchdog group has said congressional moves for more market oversight have been blocked by the oil industry's powerful lobbying efforts.

Many analysts believe speculative investors played a role in driving oil prices above $100.

"There's no excuse for continued inaction by Congress and the White House," said Judy Dugan, the consumer group's research director.

The criticism is nothing new to Irving-based Exxon Mobil, which has reported gargantuan profits in recent years during spikes in commodity prices. Those spikes typically make it more costly for consumers to fill their tanks and heat their homes.

In 2005, when the price for a gallon of gas first hit $3, top oil executives were hauled before federal lawmakers to explain profits and assure customers they weren't being gouged.

Industry representatives say it's important to note oil companies invest large portions of their profits back into their businesses. Exxon Mobil, for example, said Friday its spending on capital and exploration projects increased to nearly $21 billion last year, up 5 percent from 2006.

It also noted its U.S. tax bill from 2002 to 2006 was $59.9 billion, and that its worldwide effective income tax rate for 2006 was 43 percent.

What's more, finding new supplies of oil and gas is becoming increasingly more expensive and difficult. The recent boom has pushed up prices for labor and equipment, and forced the companies into more remote, challenging environments.

"These companies continue to face formidable reserve replacement, production growth and cost challenges," Moody's Investors Service said in a recent note.

Higher commodity prices were clearly evident from earnings at Exxon Mobil's exploration and production arm, where net income rose 32 percent to $8.2 billion.

Exxon's production increased nearly 1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006, driven by higher demand for natural gas in Europe. Excluding Exxon assets that were taken over by the Venezuelan government last year and other factors, production rose nearly 3 percent.

Refining and marketing earnings came to $2.3 billion, up from nearly $2 billion in the same quarter a year ago, as improved refining operations offset lower U.S. refining margins.

Refining margins _ the difference between the cost of crude and what the company makes on refined products such as gasoline _ have been squeezed in recent months as spiking oil prices outpaced increases in gasoline prices and other refined products.

They also affected Chevron's quarterly earnings, which rose 29 percent to $4.88 billion as higher oil prices offset weakness in the refining sector. Revenue also rose 29 percent to $61.41 billion.

Exxon Mobil declared a quarterly dividend of 35 cents per share earlier this week _ in line with its past several quarters.

Neither Exxon Mobil nor Chevron gave an outlook for upcoming financial results, though Chevron said "major" project delays have lowered its outlook for 2008 production by about 150,000 barrels of oil per day to 2.65 million barrels.

Some analysts expect refining margins to rebound as the summer driving season approaches and gasoline prices rise.

John Parry, a senior analyst with John S. Herold Inc., said if crude prices remain in the $90-per-barrel range, oil company earnings are likely to be flat or slightly lower than the most recent quarter.

Despite U.S. urging, OPEC decided Friday against increasing the amount of oil it produces, insisting that supplies were adequate and that speculators and geopolitical jitters _ not oil availability _ were setting prices. It said it was focused on near-term expectations.

Exxon Mobil shares fell 45 cents to $85.95 on Friday. They've traded in a 52-week range of $69.02 to $95.27. Chevron dropped 76 cents to $82.49. Its shares have traded in a range of $64.99 to $95.50 in the past year.

___

AP Business Writer Lauren LaCapra in New York contributed to this report.

C
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I been saying for better part of 7 years. Once Bush/Cheney were elected buy oil stocks. Make doe with them.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Lets put NYT article up also--it lays it on a little thicker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/b...07bb45a78d5dd3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It is unbelievable to me that the media can lead their sheep around by the snoot so easily.

You'd think Exxon stock would have skyrocketed the past 2 years with both years producing record profits. Why not- because investors look beyond the intended hype--as in case of articles above.

Lets put things in perspective--The only thing these media outlets want you to see is record profits in $ amounts--why- It leads the sheep as we see to go balisitic-knowing they will never look at the facts.

Lets take a look at the peritinent facts they don't want to tell you--of course it still won't change mind of some-and why from a prudent persons point of view these profits have lagged behind most Fortune 500 companies.

1st they like to thow out those big $$$ of profit -but fail to tell you Exxon is the # 2 largest company in world--and the $ amount of profits should be at the top.
-a 300billion company makes 10% =30 Billion profit
--500million dollar company can make 100%=500 mil profit

Why don't the media convey earnings in relation to % in increase in profits which gives equal comparison to smaller companies vs larger--

I'll tell you why- it shoots their intent right out the window.

Exxon increase in profits from 05 to 06 was a paltery 9.6% and will be close to that this year.
Which would rank them way down the list of Fortune 500--here is top 50-with # 50 having 92% increase-asmatter of fact average increase was almost 30%-
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort...formers/companies/increase_profits/index.html
"Fortune Magazine) -- The notion of the little guy striking it rich - finding gold at Sutter's Mill, discovering oil at Spindletop, or cashing in on a dot-com IPO in Silicon Valley - runs deep in American lore. But something even more historic transpired in 2006: A massive swath of the established economy - also known as the Fortune 500 - collectively generated unprecedented earnings.

The grand total: $785 billion, a 29% increase over 2005. Those returns obliterated the previous cyclical peak, $444 billion, achieved in 2000 at the height of the tech explosion. Put simply, American companies are enjoying the most sumptuously profitable period in the 500's 53-year history. Last year post-tax profit margins hit 7.9%. That's 27% higher than the 6.2% posted in 2000, then lauded as exceptional.
===========================
So Exxon lagged way behind in profits--
-and that ladies and gentlemen is why you have diff people react diff to their "record earnings" report Friday--the investor selling--and the less informed doing their best :mj16: everytime profit by oil co is mentioned. :)
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Your kidding me. I'll take a buy in at 46 and out at 94 anytime. Plus a nice Div was given a long the way. Im on side lines now looking for that new entry point. If Dem's win W H I may stay out.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
I been saying for better part of 7 years. Once Bush/Cheney were elected buy oil stocks. Make doe with them.

.........................................................

djv

I wonder how Haliburton has done since the boys been in office ?

Is there a way to check that ?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Hal did ok. It's hard to follow because it sold off some of it's business. That gave stockholders a bonus. Hal makes money. Now they put part of it in middle east. Lower taxes they say and closer to more business. Better way to say it is get away from paying there fair share here.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
I have no problem with private companies making money but when you are part of a Government sponsored monopoly backed by the tax payers of America this is a joke.... what do they PRODUCE ???? NOTHING..... 3% OF THE WORLDS OIL ???? They have payed 60B in taxes from 2002 - 2006 and the American people are paying 120B this yr alone for this war that helps exxon make money. You can't make this shit up ... We borrow money from China to fund a war so that exxon can make money selling oil to China... because our gov & big oil are in bed with China they let them ship anything and everything into our country to poison us with food, toys , you name it.. (google poison from china) (google china exxon ) ............ Free trade !!! Yea right !!
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
I have no problem with private companies making money but when you are part of a Government sponsoerd monopoly backed by the tax payers of America this is a joke.... what do they PRODUCE ???? NOTHING..... 3% OF THE WORLDS OIL ???? They have payed 60B in taxes from 2002 - 2006 and the American people are paying 120B this yr alone for this war that helps exxon make money. You can't make this shit up ... We borrow money from China to fund a war so that exxon can make money selling oil to China... because our gov & big oil are in bed with China they let them ship anything and everything into our country to poison us with
food, toys , you name it.. (google poison from china) (google china exxon ) ............ Free trade !!! Yea right !!

elaborate-especially on point-
"You can't make this shit up
--1st where did you get your figure they paid 60B in taxes from 2002 to 2006--#'s I get are much diff #'s
2nd Could you give us any documentation China lent U.S. money for war--or is this just more liberal talking points -"that can't be made up
3 Provide us with list of U.S. fatalties from China or any other countries products.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
figure I'm looking at on Exxon taxes--

"Saturday, February 02, 2008
Putting Exxon's Tax Bill In Perspective

Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes). '

Next would you like to get into their Charitable contributions--
"02:04 PM CDT on Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bloomberg News


Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to spend $125 million on math and science training for U.S. teachers and incentives for students who take advanced courses, the biggest charitable contribution in the oil company's 125-year history.

Exxon Mobil is giving the money to the National Math and Science Initiative, a non-profit group that will encourage math and science majors to pursue teaching careers, said Gerald McElvy, who oversees Irving-based Exxon Mobil's $200 million-a-year philanthropic foundation.



Then by all means we should get into what they spend annually on sources for alternative fuel--
Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest publicly owned oil company, plans to invest up to $100 million in Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project, which studies energy sources that have low carbon dioxide emissions. A report posted on Exxon's Web site also says the company is researching such alternative energy sources as hydrogen, but it gives no financial details.

The amounts that oil companies invest in alternative energy typically pale in comparison to some of their other expenditures.

Exxon spent $19.9 billion in 2006 on capital expenses and the hunt for more oil. It also paid $29.6 billion to buy back some of its own stock, a move meant to reward investors by increasing the value of outstanding shares. The company's annual profit hit $39.5 billion, the most ever for an American company.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
the facts are :I have never voted for a Liberal, we are in debt to china, we have allowed china to ship poison into this country in all types of goods, including food.... those are the facts.. It's not just china but they are the biggest. I read yesterday that exxon paid 11.8 billion in 2004 in st & fed taxes... 60 billion from 2002-2006. maybe your #'s are wrong.....
 
Last edited:

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
Why is it so hard to figure out what they pay in taxes.... depending on the source the real # is different.... My point was , we can spend in one yr on a war what exxon pays to our gov in 5 yrs.... Lets say my #'s are bad...... lets say that exxon payed 120b from 2002-2006. ... It doesn't make sense to spend the wealth of America this way...... Exxon is really not a private corp.... they are broker of gas.... most of their consumers have no choice.... You want to throw the word liberal around like it's a dirty word.... Nothing could be more liberal or socialist than a corporation propped up by its governments policies against the people that feed it. Exxon (all big oil foreign & domestic) / American Gov / China/ are partners .....
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Wayne, you throw out a ton of numbers in these posts, and try to make a point that somehow these companies are (I guess) not doing that well, or are beyond reproach. There are so many ways to look at these things, and I certainly look at them much differently than you do.

You submit a list of the highest increasing percentages of profits, and then say these companies are lagging behind these others. I would guess that these lists change quite a bit from year to year, and would guess that companies that are at the levels of these companies would be less volatile, if anything. To try to gloss over the fact that Exxon-Mobile was somehow left behind when showing an increase like they did of profits really doesn't tell the whole story. That "paltry" 9.6% increase in profits that year represented a whole heckuva lotta billions of dollars. And those numbers are after taking into account everything you mentioned - much of which actually helps the company in other ways both now and in the future.

They are getting massive tax credits for investing in Ethanol and other renewable sources. Especially Ethanol, though, they have a great gig going. They get the credits for investing (buying up) ethanol production companies, they get credits for purchasing the ethanol they (or others) produce on the market, all along the way helping control the price of it and keeping it close the price of oil/gas. And the taxpayer is helping them every step of the way, thanks to this administration and the energy policies they pushed through after asking these same company execs to help them craft it. Ingenious, really. No democrats allowed, nor wanted, in those meetings. I wonder why...

You cite their benevolent charitable contributions. I don't suppose they receive any tax benefits for those, do they? Nor good PR? Nor help in crafting "studies" that show them to be "caring" companies, or to paint their companies in a good light when it comes to legislative situations now and in the future - which will certainly benefit them in so many ways.

How about the lucrative contracts they were awarded in Iraq over the past few years? That was pretty tough on them, wasn't it? How do they manage with all this "burden" placed on them every year?

I found this line interesting: "Exxon spent $19.9 billion in 2006 on capital expenses and the hunt for more oil." They tack on that "hunt for more oil" along with the capital expenses...pretty blurry verbiage, there. That number is pretty small when looking at these other numbers...and it's ironic they try to take credit for that, as they will profit the most from actually finding any oil...:mj07: I wonder why they are looking for it...to help others? :mj07:

You want me to give the company credit for paying out dividends to shareholders? Why? I know why shareholders think that's cool, but as a taxpayer that actually pays for many of the reasons they can afford to pay dividends, it's only out of pocket expense for me.They take from me in so many ways, thanks in large part to this administration.

Sorry, this argument can be waged in many ways. I certainly don't share your analysis on looking at these companies.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
1st Mr B
--I see we have regressed from your 1st statement of--"We borrow money from China" to fund a war to now-"we are in debt to china"
--how about cutting this charade short--and inform us of where "these loans/debts" originated- :shrug:

Chad Surprise to see you step into a no win situation--especially with the likes of Exxon or anyone makes charitble contributions for the tax benefit--Give us your best shot on how Exxon can save more than they spend on chartible gifts.

On your reply in general--appears you find probs with corp that has grown to 2nd largest in world (behind Walmart--another thorn in liberals side)

I said initially there would be some that could read the facts and still not see media's misleading intent--just didn't think you'd be one of them.

the conservative dream--
Company employ 82,000 people with benefits---give generously to charity-uses huge sums for research--and take 10% profit ("considerably below") ave of Forune 500 companies.

the liberal dream
Get rid of this monster let the gov regulate oil--What about the 182,000 jobs and benefits--what about the charity and research? Not a prob-libs have the answer--the tax payor--they can pay for healthcare--they can bail out hardship areas--they can pay for R&D and unemployment benefits instead--its the liberal way--RAISE TAXES--won't be comng from your base of supporters--they don't pay taxes.

Maybe asnswer is we can increase states rights--
We'll take the nasty ole exxon you don't want--walmart too and all others that employ people pay benefits and make profits --and liberals on the other hand can have their base.--and let everyone have satisfaction of living with their convictions--sound fair:shrug:
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
1st Mr B
--I see we have regressed from your 1st statement of--"We borrow money from China" to fund a war to now-"we are in debt to china"
--how about cutting this charade short--and inform us of where "these loans/debts" originated- :shrug:

Chad Surprise to see you step into a no win situation--especially with the likes of Exxon or anyone makes charitble contributions for the tax benefit--Give us your best shot on how Exxon can save more than they spend on chartible gifts.

On your reply in general--appears you find probs with corp that has grown to 2nd largest in world (behind Walmart--another thorn in liberals side)

I said initially there would be some that could read the facts and still not see media's misleading intent--just didn't think you'd be one of them.

the conservative dream--
Company employ 82,000 people with benefits---give generously to charity-uses huge sums for research--and take 10% profit ("considerably below") ave of Forune 500 companies.

the liberal dream
Get rid of this monster let the gov regulate oil--What about the 182,000 jobs and benefits--what about the charity and research? Not a prob-libs have the answer--the tax payor--they can pay for healthcare--they can bail out hardship areas--they can pay for R&D and unemployment benefits instead--its the liberal way--RAISE TAXES--won't be comng from your base of supporters--they don't pay taxes.

Maybe asnswer is we can increase states rights--
We'll take the nasty ole exxon you don't want--walmart too and all others that employ people pay benefits and make profits --and liberals on the other hand can have their base.--and let everyone have satisfaction of living with their convictions--sound fair:shrug:

You want to talk about debt or loans ????? same thing.. you want to talk about how many Americans have died from imports from china or how many are being affected from imports from china..... Same thing.. exxon is a company that does nothing for or produces nothing for America.... exxon is a company that is, American gov backed , by the people , against the people and their money they have no choice in propping this scoicalist gov welfare program up... Exxon is like the congress and the senate. They are 3 of the biggest soicial welfare programs America has to offer.
 
Last edited:

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
I'm not saying get rid of exxon, I'm not saying get rid of the congress or the senate. Let them earn their money the way that most of the American Peole do. Let them have to get up every day and have to compete....
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
No disrespect intended Mr B but I don't think China has any debt or loans obligations of U.S.gov nor does any other country that I am aware of.

What they do hold is a lot of U.S. bonds/US Dollar and other monetary positions. The media often will try to portray these as "debt" if it fits their agenda--but it is a totally false misrempresentation.

example
China 'may cut US debt holdings'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4875606.stm
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
A quick retort, Wayne. I'm not saying get rid of Exxon-Mobile (although allowing them to merge is another story for another day), and that they are necessarily bad at all. My point was, and always has been, the administration doing everything in their power - and some things in my opinion outside of their allowable powers - to benefit them at a cost to me initially, and then I pay at the pump the prices I do after they benefit so handsomely. It's a triple-whammy of sorts, and the only people that benefit from them making a 10% gain in profits (which you call small) are the companies and people who invest in them. I fail to see how I benefit from them making such huge profits, no matter how "little" the percentages are. I suppose I could get more morose about the administration profiting from their conduct, but I'll leave that out of this discussion.

So, you can continue to put words in my mouth and label me - while avoiding my points if you like. It doesn't change the discussion in my mind, as I have my own points that I think are very pertinent. I really don't find your efforts to label me and lump me in with others to be fair, nor accurate, but if it makes you feel like your points are more valid...go for it.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
That's the problem in America, the conservative movement is crippled... you and they want the American people to prop up and support the last 7 yrs of the most socialist government this country has ever seen... The bush administration does not only want our money to redistribute wealth to thier friends here at home.. They want the American people to go to work for iraq, saudi and kuwait.. The American People are resourcfull but, we can't take on the US GOV, our enemies in the middle east and terrorist to. Someone has to level the playing field... Who is looking out for US ??? We gave Binladen the money to attack us... We gave our gov the money not to protect us... What do you and they want us to do ?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Sorry if I put words in your mouth Chad

I think the point we see differently is what is large profits.

I think a million $ co with $200,000 profit
is greater than a
$10 mil co with a 1 mil profit.

and some look at it as 1 mil profit is more than $500,000.


the odd thing I find is those that follow the 2nd example somehow reverse themselve completely and consider individuals paying millions in taxes are getting all the breaks compared to those paying little or none.:)

The only consistency in their thinking is they will use whichever example fits their particualr political agenda.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl

been away from here completely for a week. how did sponge get in here :shrug:

oh shit. this is Jack posting from matt's puter and i'm logged in as kosar. sorry for the confusion. :SIB
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
poor Exxon...they are just a kind hearted, great American company trying to eek out a profit.

xom
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top